Favorite Schools

Favorite Teams

Oregon's U.S. Attorney responds to community criticism of DOJ settlement on Portland police reforms

amanda-marshall.JPG

Amanda Marshall, U.S. Attorney for Oregon, when she stood with then- Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez in September 2012 to announce federal findings that Portland police engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive use of force against people with mental illness.
(Bruce Ely/The Oregonian)

Oregon's top federal prosecutor rushed to defend the
settlement agreement her office negotiated with the city of Portland on a package
of police reforms, after the plan drew hours of criticism from community
members in court this week.

U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall's message to the public:
"Don't sacrifice the good for the perfect.''

Marshall said she wants to
highlight what's at stake if the agreement isn't adopted. She also sought to explain why the U.S.
Department of Justice didn't pursue a case against the Portland Police Bureau for policing
that discriminates against people based on their race, and why the settlement
shouldn't be scrapped because it alone doesn't solve the scarcity of mental
health care in the metropolitan Portland area – both frequent points raised in
the public testimony.

"This agreement is not a panacea," she told The Oregonian in an interview. "It is not going to solve a
lack of community-based mental health care, or a decades-long history of
distrust in the African American community of Portland police. But
this agreement will provide a foundation upon which those issues can be
addressed.''

The settlement followed Justice Department findings in
the fall of 2012 that Portland police engaged in a pattern or practice of
excessive force against people with mental illness or perceived to have mental illness.

The federal inquiry also
found Portland police use of stun guns was sometimes excessive and
inappropriate and that at times officers used greater force than necessary
when there was little justification. The settlement calls for a series
of reforms to Portland police use-of-force and Taser policies, expanded crisis
intervention training for officers, more consistent discipline and increased
community oversight of police.

During a day-and-a half hearing before a federal judge, dozens
of people said the settlement didn't go far enough. Members of the
African American community and others said it failed to address controversial
police shootings and questionable traffic stops of black men and women. Mental
health advocates said the agreement would do little if the state doesn't
provide more community-based treatment opportunities. Many urged the judge to
reject the agreement, while others pushed for the judge to appoint an independent monitor
to make sure the reforms are enacted.

The Justice Department evaluated
police use of force over 18 months.

"We weren't limiting it to any particular group,'' Marshall said.

During that period, federal investigators
did not find evidence that police used excessive force based on the race of an individual, she said.

She acknowledged that the citizen watchdog group Portland Copwatch
presented data to federal investigators during the inquiry that showed
police stopped African American motorists at a disproportionate rate. But she
said the statistics weren't enough to bring a case against police. In evaluating police traffic stops, federal
authorities must have evidence that the officers "were intentionally motivated
to pursue people based on their race,'' she said.

Yet Marshall pointed out that federal prosecutors are
requiring the Police Bureau in the current settlement to implement its own 2009
plan to address racial profiling, collect more demographic data on police
encounters and require
audits of bureau reports to make sure officers have a legal
justification for police stops.

On the mental health front, though the settlement says the federal government expects local coordinated care
organizations to establish one or more crisis treatment drop-off or
walk-in centers by mid-2013, Marshall said that language was included "to give
the city and county leverage to push the state for that support.'' Critics have pointed out that no new center has opened.

"It is not on the city's back to fix that. ... That is with the
state of Oregon,'' Marshall said.

She said her office did not want to wait until the state
fixes the problem to correct the deficiencies in the Police Bureau. The Justice
Department also is pressing the state to expand community-based care across
Oregon as a result of a separate investigation.

Despite misgivings voiced by dozens of people during the court testimony, Marshall said she's confident that Justice Department officials, together with a hired city compliance officer, will have the power to make sure the reforms are put in place.

If the judge rejects
the settlement and the case proceeds to trial against the city, the court could
order a remedy. But that remedy would be restricted to police use of force against
people with mental illness, and the broader reforms in the current
settlement -- which call for greater community outreach, improved police data collection and analysis of traffic stops to address concerns about racial profiling -- may
fall away, she said.

Though U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon opened the
door for parties to the case to make amendments to the agreement, Marshall did
not articulate any under consideration. Federal officials will await
further direction from the judge, she said.

"We're definitely open to doing what we can do to move this
process forward,'' Marshall said. "There was a lot of work that went into this,
and we're hopeful it doesn't fall apart.''